Craig Sager Is Finally Going To Work His First NBA Finals Game

June 15, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

For the first time in his illustrious career, sideline reporter Craig Sager will be on the floor reporting from the NBA Finals.

The Turner Sports veteran of 34 years will be partnering with ESPN as a sideline reporter for Thursday night’s Game 6 between the Golden State Warriors and the Cleveland Cavaliers

Though many of us have grown accustomed to seeing Sager and his flamboyant attire all the way through the conference finals, he’s never actually reported on the NBA’s biggest stage.

Sager expressed his interest in joining the ESPN group to Sports Illustrated in an interview published Wednesday:

Would I be interested? My God, of course! But I didn’t want to step on anyone’s toes, and ESPN has a cast of hundreds. I didn’t want to take away from what Doris [Burke] or anyone else on the crew did. But yeah, I wanted to be a part of it.

So why wait until Game 6? According to Sports Illustrated, Sager was scheduled for eight days of chemotherapy following the conclusion of the Western Conference Finals. “That would be the only time I could do a game, and so it had to be Game 6,” Sager told Sports Illustrated. 

Sager was diagnosed with leukemia in 2014. For a stretch, his cancer had gone into remission, but Sager announced in a interview with HBO’s “Real Sports” in March that it had returned. Doctors told Sager that a patient not receiving treatment for his diagnosis generally would have just three to six months to live.

However, Sager went on to tell Sports Illustrated that he did not want to steal the spotlight from the Warriors or the Cavaliers.

“I’ve been watching the series very closely and, while I do not want to distract in any way from the event itself, I look forward to being in the building for what will be an incredibly exciting Game 6,” Sager said. “The NBA community is a very special one and this is a great honor.”

With everything set, we now just have to wait and see what wild outfit Sager wears for his first-ever NBA Finals appearance. 

If you need more reasons to be a supporter of Craig Sager, here are 8 stories that show how much people love him.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Donald Trump Takes A Page From The Autocrat’s Media Playbook

June 14, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

NEW YORK — On Monday evening, Reporters Without Borders issued a statement that “strongly and unequivocally condemns this latest act of hostility toward the press as a serious violation of press freedom.”

This latest infringement of press freedom didn’t take place in Russia, Turkey, or Ecuador, countries with autocratic leaders whose hostility toward the the media usually prompts such condemnations from international advocacy groups. It happened in the United States.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump announced Monday afternoon on Facebook that his campaign was revoking The Washington Post’s press credentials after the paper, briefly, published a headline online that he considered unfair. 

The Committee to Protect Journalists, better known for tracking press freedom abuses overseas, said that such an action “provides a ready made excuse for authoritarian leaders to crackdown further on independent journalists.”

Though Trump has benefited from excessive media attention this campaign cycle, he’s simultaneously vilified journalists throughout and his campaign’s waged a sustained assault on the the press. The ”phony and dishonest” Post joined a media blacklist Monday that has already included Politico, Univision, Fusion, The Daily Beast, BuzzFeed, Mother Jones, National Review, The Des Moines Register, and The Huffington Post. Even news organizations receiving credentials for rallies must agree to severe restrictions on their reporting. 

Trump’s demonstrated an authoritarian streak throughout the campaign, from describing pro-Democracy activists massacred by the Chinese government in Tiananmen Square as rioters to praising the strength of Russian president Vladimir Putin, whose country ranks 148 out of 180 on Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index.

In December, Trump initially defended Putin when MSNBC host Joe Scarborough claimed the Russian leader had killed journalists. (Dozens of journalists have been killed in Russia in recent years, though their cases often go unresolved.) And in May, Trump suggested Amazon chief and Post owner Jeff Bezos would face an anti-trust investigation if he’s a elected president, a threat some viewed as right out of Putin’s playbook. 

On Monday night, Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky also compared Trump to the Russian leader and said such infringements on the press should not happen in the U.S.

Trump’s rhetoric and actions have also invited comparisons to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, who has aggressively clamped down on the press and whose country ranks 151 on the press freedom index. Some journalists have also likened Trump to former Italian Prime Minister and media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, given the former reality star’s savvy use of television to fuel his political rise and tendency to bully journalists asking tough questions. 

In a Tuesday open letter to Trump, journalists from Univision News called his action against the Post “unprecedented and dangerous.”

“There are all too many places on earth where political figures use whatever is at their disposal to punish and silence unfavorable news coverage,” they wrote. “The U.S. is not one of those places.”

Several journalists and foreign policy experts on Twitter also compared Trump’s broadside against the Post to the behavior of authoritarian governments. 

My colleagues have gotten credentials to cover despots around the world. But we've been barred from covering a candidate in our own country.

— Kevin Sieff (@ksieff) June 13, 2016

Trump's ban on Wash Post is latest battle in his war with the press. He's acting like China!

— Keith Richburg (@keithrichburg) June 14, 2016

Trump may be right on 1 thing: He'd probably get on w/ Putin, Lukashenko…authoritarians w/ whom he can bond over blacklisting journalists.

— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) June 14, 2016

Trump much more like Erdogan than Putin, really.

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) June 13, 2016

Trump lashes out at critical journalists just the way Erdogan does in Turkey. Truly, what miserable days for the open society.

— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) June 14, 2016

Trump’s demagoguery and strongman rhetoric have raised questions throughout the campaign about what can, or cannot, happen in the United States. Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan has argued Trumpism may be a harbinger of fascism and some legal experts, alarmed by the GOP presumptive nominee’s attacks on the press and judiciary, see ”contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law.” 

Joel Simon, executive director for the Committee to Protect Journalists, told HuffPost that Trump’s tone and rhetoric, and actions of some of his supporters, “have gotten on our radar” this election cycle.

CPJ has investigated U.S.-based press freedom concerns in the past, but Simon emphasized in a recent interview that the organization’s priority is to advocate for “journalists who are facing threats to their lives or threats to their freedom who are really in situations of imminent peril” — grave concerns that currently rise above not providing credentials for events. Journalists from blacklisted news outlets had been able to attend Trump events in the past by lining up with the public, though Trump’s security recently kicked out a Politico reporter who entered a rally with a general admission ticket. 

“You don’t want to make too direct a comparison because it trivializes the challenges that journalists face in those countries,” Simon said. “On the other hand, I do get nervous when politicians campaign so aggressively against the press because it sets the stage for, sort of softens up public opinion if you will, for policies that can be detrimental.”

One key difference, Simon stressed, is that the U.S. has a legacy of institutions protecting speech, starting with the First Amendment. It’s easier, he said, to turn such heated rhetoric into policy “where there are no institutions or limited institutions that could restrain it.”

Journalist Masha Gessen, who has written critically on Putin and left Russia in 2013 following the passing of anti-gay laws, has similarly expressed hope that U.S. institutions would serve as a bulwark against Trump’s worst impulses. In a recent Slate interview, Gessen agreed that Trump’s threat against Bezos was a Putin tactic, but noted that the U.S. has much stronger institutions supporting democracy. 

“That’s the really huge difference between Trump and Putin,” Gessen said. “The worst case scenario — Trump comes to power — I think we have to really ask the question, ‘How much damage could he do to institutions in four years?’”

Charlotte Klein provided research assistance. 

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liarrampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


At This Point, The Orlando Massacre Is Our Fault

June 13, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

How’s your Monday?

I spent mine talking about the final text messages a young man sent his mother from inside Pulse night club in Orlando. He typed out ‘Mommy’ in his pleas for help. I wanted to walk off the set, get in my car and drive far away.

We can’t talk about it. That’s the conclusion I’ve come to, and I came to it long before this latest horrific tragedy in Orlando.

Sandy Hook did me in. When 20 first graders are slaughtered in their classroom and nothing is done about it, you know we’ve lost our minds.

Arm everyone. Confiscate guns. It’s the democrats/republicans/his/her/their fault. It’s mental illness. It’s religious extremism.’

You know what? At this point, it’s our fault. It’s our fault for listening to hollow promises made by people who have no intention of doing anything. It’s our fault for believing the spin from this side or that side. It’s our fault for becoming desensitized to mass shootings.

Be honest, were you shocked when you heard a gunman had entered somewhere and started shooting? I wasn’t. I’m ashamed it took the number 50 to stagger me. This kind of desensitization goes against my beliefs, against who I am as a human being.

Can you hear it? The machine is revving up. The candidates and pundits and paid hacks will slam the right and left-muslims-Obama-anything slammable. Devastated families will bury their dead and unlike the rest of us who will shake it off and move on, their grief and loss will be without end.pulse

We are like my 9 year old who plugs her ears and sings “La la la la la la la la,” to drown out what her big brother is trying to say to her. Where has that gotten us? I’ll tell you where, because I’m exceptionally adept at directions. It’s gotten us to the largest mass shooting in U.S. history.

Where do we go from here? I have no clue. Should we try to turn around or take a detour or a short cut, or keep going? The problem is that all roads to sanity are blocked by people so busy running their mouths and pointing their fingers that others have plenty of time to pull the trigger and take more innocent lives.

I don’t care if you love guns or hate guns, if you own a hundred or wouldn’t let one in your house — I think we all agree that we don’t want our children and mothers and fathers murdered at school (Sandy Hook) or at the work Christmas party (San Bernardino) or in class at college (Virginia Tech) or at a night club (Orlando).

It’s Groundhog Day, with a body count.

I’m not going to write ‘love must win over hate’ or that we need to ‘put aside our differences and work together.’ Those incredibly important and true words ring hollow in my jaded ears.

That poor mother in Orlando forced to read the last terrified moments of her son’s life. ‘He’s coming. I’m gonna die. Mommy I love you….’

You good with that? Yeah, me either.

This essay was originally published here. To follow Jaye Watson, click here or here.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Lowry/Reagan Predict Gingrich-Warren VP Contest

June 12, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos



By Mark Green

“Woman Hear Me Roar” says Clinton clinching nomination and making some spines tingle. But the panel sticks to Trump odds of 5-40% because he’s a qualified ignorant bully and she’s a qualified smart president. Can he be dumped by GOP? Only if more Curiel-like blunders and polls showing her steadily up by 10 points.

Hillary becomes presumptive nominee. When Trump last month said that Clinton was playing the woman’s card, cheekily responded, “then deal me in!” Apparently she meant it, given her remarks Tuesday night. Spine-tingling? Rich says no because, though Obama’s win was historically thrilling, “he was an outsider and Clinton really has been around so long that she’s the insider.”

Having tied Obama in 2008 and won the nomination in 2016, would he admit that, will be concede, like Wagner’s music, “she’s better than she sounds?” Rich won’t give her that, only admitting that she’s “resilient, smart and winning the office by default.” He concedes there will be a record gender gap while Ron agrees that there aren’t enough white men to jump to Trump after Romney won 65 percent of them in 2012.

Will Sanders blow his hold’em/fold’em moment? Despite the media focus (including ours), don’t we know how this Sanders-Clinton movie ends? There a consensus that, however he gets there, Sanders will end up urging his supporters to vote for Hillary after repeating his list of proposals. That’s what happened with Mondale-Hart in 1984, Clinton-Obama in 2008, and, as Ron discusses, Reagan-Ford in 1976, the latter two being closer contests. Ron admits that his father “probably campaigned less than Ford wanted but more than his heart wanted.”

Though Sanders lacks the usual incentives of a defeated candidate — hope for later nomination, VP nod — he won’t do anything to indirectly help the truly radical GOP nominee. Hence his Tuesday night speech adjusting his rhetoric to emphasize “his plan to fight for racial and economic justice all the way to the Philadelphia Convention!” That is, “for…justice,” not for the presidency.

Host: Conclusion — there’s unlikely to be any more from Sanders chiding Goldman speeches and the Clinton Foundation, as he gives stump speech at Convention and wins a procedural or programmatic fight or two. (But why wouldn’t she release the speech transcripts now that Sanders is effectively out?) Also, when it comes down to not “Bernie or Bust” but “Trump or Clinton,” even Bern hard-liners will do the right and smart thing for the “progressive agenda.”

Dump Trump? The panel ardently agree that he can’t get close to the White House, especially after a week when the two ranking Republicans in the country, Ryan and McConnell, respectively said he made a “racist” statement and “didn’t know much about the issues.” When has anything like that happened before?

But after his very bad, really awful week, can he be dropped from the ticket at this point? Probably not says Rich, a leader of #nevertrump, but…if he made some more Curiel-level mistakes and fell behind by 10-15 points, “which won’t happen — it’ll be maybe five points” — then things could change. Nor does he think the Libertarian ticket will either make much of a difference in purple states or get into the debates, “and even then, Gary Johnson is no Mitt Romney in a debate.” Also, given a ticket that’s socially liberal and for open borders, it’s not one that attracts his brand of conservatism.

Last: Lowry unexpectedly announces that “Trump will pick Gingrich” since it gives him some Washington cred and Newt has the verbal skills to tear Hillary’s heart out. Ron sensibly then counters, “if that happens, the Dem choice should be Warren, who is a comparably strong debater and attacker.”

The Host relentlessly believes that Trump — for reasons historical, political, and demographic, as well as how he “matches up” against Clinton — is a ‘dead man walking’…As Galbraith said of Black Tuesday 1929, ‘the end had come but it was not in sight.’” But he’s not a fan of Warren as #2. “She has such a great self-awareness and mind that she should prefer to be a singularly influential progressive senator for a decade or two rather than a yes-woman in the White House, which is not at all her thing.”

Given the activity of this past week with Trump’s self-immolating comments and Clinton’s capture of the nomination and well-received speeches, do Lowry, Reagan and Green stick with their estimates of Trump’s odds of last month — 40%, 10%, and 5%? Each of us sticks to numbers, with Rich saying 40% since you can’t ignore the possibility of unexpected events like “losing the FBI primary, a recession or terrorist attack.” (The show was taped two days before the Orlando massacre.)

But when Clinton outspends him by several hundred million and her ads highlight his incessant nastiness to the disabled/minorities/women + his business cons + his policy ignorance (nukes, abortion “punishment”) + an epic weather-vane commercial + GOP-ers condemning him, she’ll win by 7-10 points, at least.

The GOP is not the same as America.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


News Anchor Gives Heartfelt Apology To Dog He Saw In Hot Car

June 12, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

A Denver news anchor gave an impassioned account Thursday of what happened when he saw a dog sweltering in a car on a 90-degree day.

“I thought about putting a rock through someone’s car window today,” Kyle Clark of 9News said, describing finding a dog inside a parked car outside a frozen yogurt shop. The dog was crying in the heat so loudly, Clark said, that he could hear it across the parking lot.

He opted not to break the window, but when the driver hadn’t come outside 10 minutes later, he called Denver 311 for help, who put him on hold. When the driver came outside and the news anchor “politely” confronted the stranger, the person “blew [him] off” and even laughed about the situation, Clark said.

“So there’s an apology in order,” Clark said on air. “Not for you, no. For your dog. I am sorry that your dog does not have better humans.”

Leaving an animal in a hot car in Denver County is a crime that can bring a fine of $999 or a year in jail, according to the

Though this dog survived, hot cars can be deadly for pets — and children. As the American Veterinary Medical Association explains, temperatures inside a car can skyrocket, rising 20 degrees within just 10 minutes. And dogs and children are more susceptible to the heat than adult humans. Dogs can’t sweat, and children’s bodies produce more heat relative to their size than adults do. That means that leaving children or pets in hot cars can result in death from heatstroke.

While some Facebook commenters are saying that Clark should have broken the window, we’re just glad that he used his experience to spread the word about the importance of keeping pets safe in the summer. 

H/T The Dodo

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Behind Hillary Clinton’s Big California Win and the Promise/Peril of the Bernie Sanders Movement

June 11, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

Poor Bernie Sanders. He made his big post-primary return to Washington Thursday, meeting with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Senate Democratic Leader Reid, ending the day with a rally at RFK Stadium. But to look at the media coverage, it’s as though all that barely happened, as the Vermont senator was simply superseded by a rush of big endorsements to Hillary Clinton. I suppose that’s what happens when a candidate who vowed to turn the race around with a big win in California instead went down to a 56-43 landslide defeat in the Golden State.

Bernie Sanders, not all that fairly, has something of a reputation as a national scold. Which made his jaunt to the Santa Monica Pier the Sunday afternoon before the California primary he had declared the cornerstone event in his hoped-for reframing of the presidential race a particular delight. With their grandkids delighting in all the amusement park rides, the senator and his deeply politically engaged wife Jane soaked in the Tony Stark-level ocean and coastal vistas as they hit all the funky pier venues.

As a Sanders primary supporter, it was heartening to see Sanders enjoy a nice break from weeks of delivering big rally speeches up and down California as he sought to change the dynamic of a titanic Democratic nomination battle moving inexorably in the direction of the longtime establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton, who had already won 3 million more popular votes.

But no true advocate, and Sanders is undeniably that, can long resist the siren call of “the speech” — not incidentally the title of Sanders’s 2011 book decrying corporate greed — and so the man who has succeeded in mainstreaming democratic socialism delivered a very truncated version of his standard rap, urging only slightly bemused stationary bike riders in the charity “Pedal on the Pier” fundraiser to join his crusade for an economy that benefits “more than the one percent.”

One finally runs out of continent not long before reaching the end of the Santa Monica Pier, a place which, with its matchless Pacific vistas, at once suggests the limitless possibility of the future and the end of the runway. And it had become apparent that, for Bernie Sanders, the seemingly endless complexity of mounting an incredibly effective insurgent presidential campaign had at last boiled down to two imperatives: Win big in California. And wait for an intervening event, i.e., a Clinton disaster, which would almost certainly have to be an indictment in the former secretary of state’s e-mail scandal.

Unfortunately for the courageous Vermont senator, there were already signs that the needed big win would not happen; indeed, that defeat could well be in the offing. As for the e-mail controversy, well, it was largely bogus. To believe in an indictment required a uniquely civilian point of view with regard to security clearances.

Exit polling of the dominant numbers of those who now vote by mail conducted by data guru Paul Mitchell had indicated that the California surge in registration of young voters and independents was not resulting in a surge by those voters in actually voting. Indeed, exit polling among those who vote by mail yielded a big lead for Hillary.

In order to overcome Hillary’s big edge among California’s regular voters, Sanders would have to drive a massive turnout of young voters greater than anything he had previously pulled off. And he would have to do it in the face of some major developments, such as the endorsement of Hillary by historically anti-Clinton Governor Jerry Brown (largely on grounds that the general election against a very threatening Donald Trump is already underway), the arrival of both Clintons for a very extensive and intensive series of appearances around the state, and Hillary’s own very powerful San Diego speech excoriating the very notion of a Trump presidency. The latter is something we may look back upon as a landmark in this campaign, not just in helping trigger Hillary’s big win in the California primary but also in potentially turning the tide against the surge of Trumpism.

As for a Hillary indictment, well, the controversy is mostly non-serious, something ginned up by the House Get-Hillary, er, Benghazi Committee. Sure, it’s highly ironic that Hillary, seeking to avoid endless gotcha games over her e-mail traffic, did something which resulted in precisely that, but so what?

Yes, there were a couple thousand classified e-mails. But they were all classified after the fact. And 96 percent of them were classified “Confidential.”

Most people with strictly civilian backgrounds, like Jane and Bernie Sanders, don’t necessarily understand how meaningless that is. For example, I was 17 years old when I got Confidential security clearance. All I had done was take the Navy oath of office. The “confidential” material in question is about as sensitive as the back pages of the New York Times, sometimes even less. Most of the rest of the e-mails in question were classified “Secret.” I got Secret clearance when I was 18 years old.

Just one percent of the “classified” e-mail in question was judged, after the fact, to be “Top Secret.” I had to be a recent college grad to make Top Secret clearance. But my observation all along has been that classification is overused, with different agencies frequently taking divergent views of the same material. If anything, a secrecy mania has accelerated since 9/11.

What Clinton did, which was also not unlike past practices by predecessors, is an embarrassment, but it’s not a scandal.

As I noted at the end of May, I didn’t believe the polls showing a Clinton-Sanders dead heat in California. I also didn’t believe a few polls showing a big Clinton lead.

Around the time of Jerry Brown’s Clinton endorsement, my feeling was that Sanders was six or seven points behind and the Clintons were certainly capable of holding on. So why did Hillary win by twice that margin?

I think that most people came to the conclusion that, as Jerry Brown suggested, the general election between Clinton and Trump was already underway. Hillary’s dramatic speech so effectively ripping Trump did much to drive that perception. And the Associated Press announcement that — with Hillary’s weekend wins in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and the movement of some super delegates — the former first lady had commitments from enough delegates to clinch the nomination provided, to mix a metaphor, the cherry on top.

In that regard, the Sanders election night party, also in Santa Monica, provided an apt summation of the promise and peril of the Sanders movement. The senator spoke very late on Tuesday night, hours after Hillary delivered a poised and polished speech at the historic Brooklyn Navy Yard declaring victory not only for most of the Tuesday contests but for the nomination itself.

More than 3000 devoted Sanders backers were on hand at the Santa Monica Airport to cheer on their champion when he finally spoke. They roared when he vowed to keep fighting for their agenda going forward, but booed when he made a gracious reference to a conversation earlier in the evening with Hillary Clinton.

Before that, the crowd had reacted with anger and incredulity to TV news reports of Hillary’s big California lead, crying “Bullshit!” and demanding that the video feed be cut off, which it was.

Thus creating a Denialistan, something all too familiar from how many folks use social media to block out information they simply don’t want to hear.

After primary night, I heard from several devoted Sanders followers who, after making the rounds of social media, wondered if various nefarious theories might account for the big reversal of their hopes in California.

Were California voters biased against a Jewish candidate, one wondered? Not so much. Both California’s senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, are Jewish. Which the fellow who asked me about the theory hadn’t known. Were votes that would have given Sanders a California victory thrown out by election officials? Not really, since Clinton won by such a large margin and California is not some corrupt back of beyond backwater. And so on.

The idea that most voters would choose to vote for Hillary Clinton seemed anathema to too many folks who should know better.

While the Democratic establishment was clearly for Clinton, any expected favors here and there are simply marginal when one considers that the former secretary of state has a whopping 3.7 million lead in the popular vote, with nearly 57 percent of the votes cast. Of the ten biggest states in the country, she won nine, with Sanders prevailing narrowly only in Michigan. That’s Clinton’s victory right there, more than accounting for the great bulk of her 375 delegate vote edge among delegates won in the primary and caucus contests, a lead far bigger than that held by Barack Obama when she conceded their hard-fought contest eight years ago.

I know Bernie Sanders know this. He’s a very smart guy who lives in the real world. Unfortunately, he is going to have to help some of his supporters to a more grounded understanding.

Sanders and the impressive movement he has built can have a big impact on the Democratic Party and on the next presidency. But not if the next presidency is that of Donald Trump.

Trump should lose, and lose big. But, even though he is being at last slammed in the media, he can still win. A few things go wrong that can go wrong and the mouth that roared can climb back in the driver’s seat.

Bernie Sanders, like his wife, is an American patriot and citizen of the world. He rightly says that a Trump presidency is simply unacceptable for this country, that it would destroy much of what has been achieved and foment chaos around the world. Now, with his campaign about to wind down, he needs to figure out how to get all his people on board in one of the most consequential elections in our history.

Facebook comments are closed on this article.

William Bradley Archive

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


David Letterman Slams ‘Despicable’ Donald Trump, Says He’s ‘Repugnant To People’

June 10, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

David Letterman is not mincing words when it comes to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

In a preview clip of Letterman’s forthcoming NBC News interview with Tom Brokaw, the former late-night host sounds off on Trump, saying he’s “repugnant to people.” 

Though he admits The Donald won the Republican party’s nominee fair and square, Letterman said people hate Trump because “he’s despicable… and in everybody’s school, you hear, ‘The great thing about America is anybody can grow up to be President.’ Oh, jeez. I guess that might be true.” 

Last summer, Letterman re-emerged from retirement to skewer Trump, creating one of his famous “Top 10″ lists called “Interesting Facts About Donald Trump.” With the help of Martin Short and Steve Martin, the two took aim at the Republican’s hair, hateful views and more: 

Letterman is the latest big name to add his two cents about the presidential hopeful. Sen. Elizabeth Warren gave a scathing criticism of Trump Thursday night at an event in DC, calling him a “loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and who serves no one but himself.” 

But perhaps the greatest takedown of Trump this week was Meryl Streep’s riveting turn as The Donald, fake tan, fat suit, wig and all: 

To see the rest of Letterman’s interview with Brokaw, watch “Dateline NBC” this Sunday at 7 p.m. 


Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liarrampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Bernie Sanders Vows To Go All In Against Trump After Obama Meeting

June 9, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Thursday that he is committed to preventing Donald Trump from winning the presidency and will soon meet with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Delivering brief remarks to the press after meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House, Sanders suggested he is ready to cooperate with the Democratic Party in a general election where he is not the party’s nominee, even as he declined to formally concede the race to Clinton.

Sanders said he had called Clinton on Tuesday night to congratulate her on her election wins.

“I look forward to meeting with her in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and to create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent,” he said.

Sanders appeared to be in high spirits after speaking with Obama, sharing a laugh as he walked with the president to a lectern on the White House grounds. Sanders’ wife, Jane, stood close by.

He thanked Obama and Vice President Joe Biden for the “degree of impartiality” they showed during the primary process.

Sanders did not repeat his previous plans to continue seeking the support of superdelegates, a Hail Mary move that could set up a bitter fight at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July. He said, however, that he would “take” his policy priorities — such as expanding Social Security and alleviating poverty — to the convention.   

The Democratic presidential candidate reaffirmed his disdain for presumptive Republican nominee Trump, calling the prospect of a Trump presidency a “disaster.”

“Needless to say, I am going to do everything in my power, and I will work as hard as I can, to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States,” Sanders affirmed.

Nonetheless, Sanders confirmed his intention to campaign for the District of Columbia primary on Tuesday. He plans to emphasize his support for giving the District of Columbia statehood.

“The state of Vermont, which I represent, has about the same amount of residents as Washington, D.C., has except we have two United States senators and one congressman with full rights, while D.C. does not,” he said.

Sanders has long expressed his support for D.C. statehood. Clinton also backs the idea.

The Vermont progressive declined to take questions after giving his short remarks. Afterward, he visited Capitol Hill, where he met with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


CNN’s Humiliation As Jeffrey Lord Makes A Mockery Out Of Their Election Night Coverage

June 8, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

There comes a time when a network has to take action against one of their panel members, because they routinely stray from the topic at hand, invent historical analogies and fabricate events that never took place, and refuse to answer simple questions.

I thought Jeffrey Lord couldn’t sink any lower than this battle with Van Jones, but I was wrong.

Cable news has been flooded with coverage of Donald Trump’s racist attacks on Judge Curiel, the judge in the civil lawsuit against Trump University. Many Republican leaders have spoken out against Trump’s racism, from Speaker Paul Ryan to Newt Gingrich to Karl Rove to the women of Outnumbered. Surfing the cable news dial, you couldn’t find anyone that believed Donald Trump was justified in claiming that the judge wouldn’t “treat him fairly” because of his Mexican heritage.

But last night during CNN’s Super Tuesday coverage, Trump supporter and frequent CNN analyst Jeffrey Lord took over a segment about the criticisms Trump faced.

It began with an innocent enough question from Michael Smerconish who said,

“..there’s a question that Donald Trump can’t answer which is, if he believes that this gentleman (Judge Curiel) is biased against him, why hasn’t his legal team gone to court, followed the process and filed a recusal motion? The lawyers won’t touch it and he has no response to that question.”

That’s as straightforward a question on Trump’s bias claims that anyone could make. If he is so unhappy and feels unfairly victimized by a biased judge, then why don’t Trump’s lawyers make a trial motion to remove him?

Jeffrey Lord ignored the question entirely and started dreaming aloud about how Trump would put his stamp on the Republican party like Ronald Reagan did. No, he really did.

And then he veered deeper into crazy town by claiming that many conservatives and the Republican party have…

“sold out on race. They have bought into this whole notion of identity politics. It’s bad.”

So it’s not Trump who is bad for smearing a judge, who was born in America, for being unfit to try his case because of his Mexican heritage, but it’s the entire Republican establishment and grassroots for acknowledging his racism.

He then sunk deeper into the psyche of his twisted mind.

“It’s a descendant of slavery and segregation it should get no where near the party of Abraham Lincoln.”

It’s not Donald Trump who has sunk into a quagmire of racism, but everybody else, because he’s a fighter against racism by making racist attacks on Judge Curiel. You know, just like those horrible liberals, who attack police chiefs as racist.

He refused to answer the question and the CNN election night coverage panel melted down into an embarrassment. Every one of the panel members confronted Lord, including S.E. Cupp, who couldn’t believe what he was saying.

SMERCONISH: That is not an answer…why hasn’t the motion been filed?

LORD: Look look look look…this man is a lifetime member of the Hispanic Bar Association…

VAN JONES: Nothing wrong with that.

LORD: …which on July 2nd of last year, put out a statement saying that there should be a boycott of all Trump properties .

CUPP; That is also not an answer to Michael’s question.


LORD: What his lawyers are going to do (overtalk)…

SMERCONISH: I am an attorney. If I were HIS attorney, I could not say, I would run afoul of the Code of Conduct if I were saying extra judicially what he is saying.

LORD: He is running for President of the United States.


LORD: Are we going to have a Judiciary that is infected by racial politics?


CUPP: This is a total distraction from both Michael’s question and what the hell this has to do with the actual case – nothing – and the notion of Donald Trump out of one side of his mouth saying ‘Hispanics love me, they are going to vote for me because I have not said anything disparaging’ to him now saying ‘this Hispanic hates me because I have said disparaging things’ . You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be winning the Hispanic vote and having Hispanics love you and have THIS Hispanic be biased because you have said things disparaging about Hispanics. It’s a total admission and I think it really has him spooked and you know it has him spooked because he is using a teleprompter tonight which is a complete defeat. I mean, he is going to look so small, standing at this rally on such a big night, speaking from a prompter, with all of the excitement completely out of his sails because he has been spooked by this. It was near universal condemnation and even you Jeffrey, you cannot spin his way out of this.

LORD: (silent stare of defeat at S.E. Cupp)

stop transcript at 4:00

restart at 4:50

VAN JONES:Has Trump ever said anything about race that is wrong?

LORD: He hasn’t said that much about race.

VAN JONES: (eye roll and look back in shock)

(laughter from panel)

(look of disbelief on Lords face)

And just as shocking as his responses was the CNN producers that let this travesty go on for over 20 straight minutes. TWENTY MINUTES.

It was an Abbott and Costello “Who’s on First” routine that was neither funny or intelligent, but denigrated the entire 70 years long civil rights struggle in America.

The humiliating segment could be boiled down to this single outrageous statement by Lord, when he responded to Van Jones objections about Trump, saying, “It wasn’t racist, he’s calling attention to racism! Hello! Hello!”

As Hillary Clinton has said about Trump, I will leave it to the psychiatrists to figure out exactly what is wrong with Jeffrey Lord.

But WTF, CNN? You have just as much to answer for as this Neanderthal, because you gave him this much airtime. This was an important, historic night in the history of the United States, and your coverage was hijacked by a paid partisan who is either consciously disruptive, or else is just plain crazy. In either event, you have no business putting him on your network, and his fellow-panel members should refuse to appear with him ever again.

Shame on you, CNN. Shame.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Behind Peter Thiel’s Plan To Destroy Gawker

June 7, 2016 by  
Filed under Videos

It’s voting season for the Emmy Awards, which means that electioneering in the form of billboards rising into the haze dominates the Los Angeles skyline. Hollywood’s elite driving down Sunset Boulevard are first beckoned to support Netflix’s Jessica Jones. Next up is’s Transparent. Towering over them all: a 12-story banner extolling HBO’s Silicon Valley, which lampoons the culture and excesses of America’s technology industry.


– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


« Previous PageNext Page »